224 réponses à ce sujet

[Sidney]

I think this is bull, since the asari kept mating with their own species way before other species were found and they survived pretty great. And yet the AY condition still remained rare. Not so much rare as now, but still rare.
 
And when they started mating with other species, suddenly, taboo?

Mating preferences can change. Maybe the AY risk was always there but, like many other lethal mutations, acceptable because of the small numbers but now that they have options they prefer not risking the AY.

...and yes the Asari are silly but no sillier than relations with the Turians or Quarians which don't even have a lore rationale. We all forgive because let's face it this is a very soft form of scifi.

[Panda]

Honestly, it never made sense to me why purebloods have a risk of being or conceiving ardat yakshi, and therefore purebloods are frowned upon by society. What society discriminates against sex with their own kind? O_o I mean, how did they reproduce before space flight? With trees??

Now there are almost no ardat yakshi anymore because of this stigma, but before the asari met other species the number must have been much higher. Strange thing. You'd think it would be the opposite, that using non-asari DNA has a risk of mutation...

Kind of feels like a lame excuse to introduce them as very, uh, open-minded sex goddesses.

 

Yes, the krogan can reproduce scary-fast. I cured the genophage, but it still makes me nervous. The thing is though, like a possible aggressive asari dominance, they do not HAVE to reproduce like crazy. I'm sure that if they hadn't been uplifted and introduced to the galactic society too early, they would have outgrown their aggression AND regulated reproduction. No race can survive on one planet like that. And they almost didn't. Food got scarce. They started nuking each other. The same thing might happen to humanity in real life.

I still think it's unfair to condemn a race by potential alone.

 

Well in general too similar genepool leads to genetic diseases becoming more usual, that's why European royalty who often married within close relatives has/had weak genepool and awful genetic diseases. Even nations that doesn't have many ethnicities have usually quite similar and thus weaker genepool and have some genetic diseases or weaknesses. Ardat Yakshi can be like this and it seems like Asari cannot within their own race eliminate that gene and they find Ardat-Yakshi's currently as horrible that they rather bring genes from other races to strenghten their genepool and eliminate recessive gene that Ardat-Yakshi seems to be. Though it wasn't always like that, I think either Morinth or Samara says that Asari's who are Ardat-Yakshi used to be respected or even worshipped within society. But during time of ME1-3 it seems like Asari have broaden human rule of not have babies with too close relatives to their whole race to strenghten whole race (in their viewpoint).

[SpaceLobster]

But during time of ME1-3 it seems like Asari have broaden human rule of not have babies with too close relatives to their whole race to strenghten whole race (in their viewpoint).

Before that there was some kind of stigma surrounding it, wether because it would weaken the genepool, or because, you know, it's family.

Asari reproductive instincts are strongly exogamous, and before alien contact, their instincts sent the asari roaming outside their kinship groups to avoid mating with relatives.

[Panda]

Before that there was some kind of stigma surrounding it, wether because it would weaken the genepool, or because, you know, it's family.

Asari reproductive instincts are strongly exogamous, and before alien contact, their instincts sent the asari roaming outside their kinship groups to avoid mating with relatives.

 

Then it seems to be even more similar as current laws/norms in our societies ^^

[Kappa Neko]

Well in general too similar genepool leads to genetic diseases becoming more usual, that's why European royalty who often married within close relatives has/had weak genepool and awful genetic diseases. Even nations that doesn't have many ethnicities have usually quite similar and thus weaker genepool and have some genetic diseases or weaknesses. Ardat Yakshi can be like this and it seems like Asari cannot within their own race eliminate that gene and they find Ardat-Yakshi's currently as horrible that they rather bring genes from other races to strenghten their genepool and eliminate recessive gene that Ardat-Yakshi seems to be. Though it wasn't always like that, I think either Morinth or Samara says that Asari's who are Ardat-Yakshi used to be respected or even worshipped within society. But during time of ME1-3 it seems like Asari have broaden human rule of not have babies with too close relatives to their whole race to strenghten whole race (in their viewpoint).

Yes, good point, but incest is different. If ALL asari/asari reproduction led to issues similar to incest, then how the hell did they survive at all before? Wouldn't that make them a biological failure? Without other species to improve their gene pool they'd eventually die out from all kinds of serious birth defects or producing lots of ardat yakshi (who are sterile). Does such a poor species exist in nature? I honestly have no idea...

[SpaceLobster]

Does such a poor species exist in nature? I honestly have no idea...

They probably would have died off, unless they live for centuries, ofcourse.

[Wulfram]

The main reason for Asari's preferring alien mates is religious, I think.  It's part of the Siari mysticism about "promoting unity between the disparate shards of the universe's awareness".

 

The Ardat-Yakshi thing might play a role, but I don't think it should be exaggerated.

 

edit:  It's a shame that Siari seems to have been largely forgotten by the series after the first game

[Kappa Neko]

There is a lot that Bioware forgot about...

 

So did I, btw. Do we know how many asari are still religious and see their mind melting as a gift to other species?

I guess that settles it then, the ones dealing in sex are doing god's work. All those strippers are misunderstood creatures...

[Wulfram]

There is a lot that Bioware forgot about...

 

So did I, btw. Do we know how many asari are still religious and see their mind melting as a gift to other species?

I guess that settles it then, the ones dealing in sex are doing god's work. All those strippers are misunderstood creatures...

 

Well, it's called the mainstream Asari religion, and it apparently effectively drove out most of the other religions, so I'd assume it was a majority.  The Asari's "embrace eternity" catchphrase seems like it came from there, going by Shiala's pre-melding speech.

 

"Let go of your physical shell. Reach out to grasp the threads that bind us, one to another. Every action sends ripples across the galaxy. Every idea must touch another mind to live. Each emotion must mark another's spirit. We are all connected. Every living being united in a single glorious existence. Open yourself to the universe. Embrace eternity!”

[Gwydden]

The main reason for Asari's preferring alien mates is religious, I think.  It's part of the Siari mysticism about "promoting unity between the disparate shards of the universe's awareness".

 

The Ardat-Yakshi thing might play a role, but I don't think it should be exaggerated.

Which just so happens to turn them into the biggest thread to genetic diversity the galaxy has ever known! 

[Suketchi]

If you hear the word ''pirate'', you think of a male. Bioware is (I think) trying to fit inside these lines of thought.

 

When I hear 'pirate', I think 'ARRGH, AVAST YE HARTIES'. Ships, sails, fancy hats, and eyepatches. Gender doesn't even come into it.

[Suketchi]

First of all, saying "There's sexy women, why aren't there sexy men" is shallow perspective that doesn't bother to look at the ideals driving gender in society. There are reasons why these things happen. Not only in fiction, but in real life. And I'm somewhat irritated by you basically saying "To be a tolerant society, men must be happy to watch other men being gay."

 

Second of all, no, asari were not predominantly strippers, strippers were predominantly asari. Big difference.

 

Thirdly, asari were absolutely put in to bring females into the aliens of the game. But you seriously aren't claiming that the females being sexy is somehow unique to Mass Effect and not, say, just about every 'epic' science fiction and fantasy story ever made and the majority of the other genres? Females being attractive is an absolute staple of fiction.

 

woooooooow

 

 

Gather round people, this is what mansplaining looks like.

 

 

 There are reasons why these things happen. Not only in fiction, but in real life.

 

Yes, there is a reason why these things happen. It's called sexism, and that's kind of what people were discussing.
 

And I'm somewhat irritated by you basically saying "To be a tolerant society, men must be happy to watch other men being gay."

 

I'm somewhat irritated by you basically saying you're uncomfortable with the idea of watching men strip (In what way does a male acting sexy equal 'gay'? Her reference to homosexuality was in regard to homosexuality being portrayed within the game, not in the strippers themselves?), and yet you expect hetero women to be happy with constantly being bombarded by highly sexualized women and rarely being catered to. Double standard much?

 

No one said anything about you having to be happy about it. Seeing as how men don't care much about how objectification of women makes hetero women uncomfortable, your feelings on male objectification are irrelevant.

 

Thirdly, asari were absolutely implemented to cater to straight men. (<--- FIXED THAT FOR YOU) But you seriously aren't claiming that the females being sexy is somehow unique to Mass Effect and not, say, just about every 'epic' science fiction and fantasy story ever made and the majority of the other genres? Females being attractive is an absolute staple of fiction.

 

'Females being attractive' is not 'an absolute staple of fiction'. It is propagated in fiction, because 'female attractiveness' is propagated in every aspect of the media.

[BabyPuncher]

I'm somewhat irritated by you basically saying you're uncomfortable with the idea of watching men strip (In what way does a male acting sexy equal 'gay'? Her reference to homosexuality was in regard to homosexuality being portrayed within the game, not in the strippers themselves?), and yet you expect hetero women to be happy with constantly being bombarded by highly sexualized women and rarely being catered to. Double standard much?

 

It's absolutely a double standard. Are you suggesting that's somehow a bad thing? Double standards are the reason gender as a concept exists. If they didn't, we'd just be two humans with different body parts that need to be in pairs to make a baby. But that's not how it is, because different ideals and expectations are placed upon men and women. That's literally what the concept of gender is - a double standard.

 

No one said anything about you having to be happy about it. Seeing as how men don't care much about how objectification of women makes hetero women uncomfortable, your feelings on male objectification are irrelevant.

 

It's really not about objectivication, first of all. It's that I don't want to see men engaging in serious romantic or sexual behavior towards other men, period. Which includes being openly sexual in areas where men are present. So for example, if a story has a gay romance that is completely chaste and has no 'obejctification' whatsoever, I still don't want to see it.

 

Really, you think you're going to win people over by demanding "Your feelings are irrelevant, you're going to watch men being gay and you're going to like it!"?

 

Secondly, I do care. And the observations I've made point to women generally being at worst, indifferent to lesbian content and female sexuality and often outright approving of it.

 

'Females being attractive' is not 'an absolute staple of fiction'. It is propagated in fiction, because 'female attractiveness' is propagated in every aspect of the media.

 

Whatever words you want to use, sure. It's present across media. Certainly nothing remotely unique to ME.

 

[Gwydden]

It's really not about objectivication, first of all. It's that I don't want to see men engaging in serious romantic or sexual behavior towards other men, period. Which includes being openly sexual in areas where men are present. So for example, if a story has a gay romance that is completely chaste and has no 'obejctification' whatsoever, I still don't want to see it.

So?

 

I don't particularly care to see it either, but surely you can see the inherent hypocrisy in having no problem with female strippers while insisting there shouldn't be male ones?

 

Really, you think you're going to win people over by demanding "Your feelings are irrelevant, you're going to watch men being gay and you're going to like it!"?

I don't think anyone's asking you to like anything. How exactly are male strippers being any more 'gay' than female ones, by the way?

 

 

Secondly, I do care. And the observations I've made point to women generally being at worst, indifferent to lesbian content and female sexuality and often outright approving of it.

I forgot to comment on this. The phrase 'anecdotal evidence' comes to mind. Did you conduct some kind of in-depth scientific study or are your observations purely casual?

[BabyPuncher]

So?

 

I don't particularly care to see it either, but surely you can see the inherent hypocrisy in having no problem with female strippers while insisting there shouldn't be male ones?

 

Like I said, it's a double standard, certainly. But there's no hypocrisy at all in saying that there are different standards for men and women.

 

How exactly are male strippers being any more 'gay' than female ones, by the way?

 

Basically, because masculinity is perceived as active and femininity is perceived as passive.

 

Men being openly sexual is a 'provocation,' so to speak, that women being openly sexual is not. And hence, open male sexuality is tolerated far less in pretty much all areas of western society.

[In Exile]

Men being openly sexual is a provocation that women being openly sexual isn't. And hence, open male sexuality is tolerated far less in pretty much all areas of western society.

That's straight up false. Or rather, it's false in the way you mean it, which is as a kind of commentary on human nature or perception. It's a contingently true historical fact, but something that's radically changing. To wit:

 

It's that I don't want to see men engaging in serious romantic or sexual behavior towards other men, period. Which includes being openly sexual in areas where men are present. So for example, if a story has a gay romance that is completely chaste and has no 'obejctification' whatsoever, I still don't want to see it.

This used to be a view, for example, that many adopted about interracial relationships. A view which is not, to put it midly, considered mainstream. The same is happening with this view of same-sex romances. So while you can comfortably hold on to a double standard, the social acceptability of holding on to it is quite rapidly eroding. But there's a more serious logic problem:

 

It's absolutely a double standard. Are you suggesting that's somehow a bad thing? Double standards are the reason gender as a concept exists. If they didn't, we'd just be two humans with different body parts that need to be in pairs to make a baby. But that's not how it is, because different ideals and expectations are placed upon men and women. That's literally what the concept of gender is - a double standard.

 

Double standards are bad. They're bad because - once we accept that reason is a thing we value - they exist because there's no rational basis to distinguish between two things. That's what makes it a double standard and not, for example, a distinction. No one would argue that the way we treat criminals and non-criminals is a "double standard", because the very fact of criminality justifies treating the groups differently.

 

Gender isn't a double standard. By its own logic, it captures relevant logical differences between things. Just because gender is binary doesn't make it a double standard. The wikipedia definition isn't ideal, but illustrates the conceptual difficulty: "A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for similar situations."

[Gwydden]

Like I said, it's a double standard, certainly. But there's no hypocrisy at all in saying that there are different standards for men and women.

It's very easy to defend the status quo when you're a beneficiary of it. You're saying other people shouldn't be allowed to have what you have because it makes you uncomfortable. Why is what makes you uncomfortable so important? What about what makes them uncomfortable? You can either argue their discomfort is their own personal issue and they need to get over it or concede that it is indeed worth taking into account. Either way, you should follow your own advice. Otherwise, yeah, it's hypocrisy.

 

Basically, because masculinity is perceived as active and femininity is perceived as passive.

 

Men being openly sexual is a 'provocation,' so to speak, that women being openly sexual is not. And hence, open male sexuality is tolerated far less in pretty much all areas of western society.

And you don't see the contradiction?

 

Being openly sexual is being active. And I still don't see the connection. Being 'effeminate' and being 'gay' are two completely different things.

[Suketchi]

It's absolutely a double standard. Are you suggesting that's somehow a bad thing? Double standards are the reason gender as a concept exists. If they didn't, we'd just be two humans with different body parts that need to be in pairs to make a baby. But that's not how it is, because different ideals and expectations are placed upon men and women. That's literally what the concept of gender is - a double standard.

 

 

It's really not about objectivication, first of all. It's that I don't want to see men engaging in serious romantic or sexual behavior towards other men, period. Which includes being openly sexual in areas where men are present. So for example, if a story has a gay romance that is completely chaste and has no 'obejctification' whatsoever, I still don't want to see it.

 

Really, you think you're going to win people over by demanding "Your feelings are irrelevant, you're going to watch men being gay and you're going to like it!"?

 

Secondly, I do care. And the observations I've made point to women generally being at worst, indifferent to lesbian content and female sexuality and often outright approving of it.

 

 

Whatever words you want to use, sure. It's present across media. Certainly nothing remotely unique to ME.

 

 

Like I said, it's a double standard, certainly. But there's no hypocrisy at all in saying that there are different standards for men and women.

 

 

Basically, because masculinity is perceived as active and femininity is perceived as passive.

 

Men being openly sexual is a provocation that women being openly sexual isn't. And hence, open male sexuality is tolerated far less in pretty much all areas of western society.

 

 

 

HOLY ****. I can't stop laughing. I don't even.

 

At this point, I don't even have to argue. You're proving my point for me.

[BabyPuncher]

That's straight up false. Or rather, it's false in the way you mean it, which is as a kind of commentary on human nature or perception. It's a contingently true historical fact, but something that's radically changing. To wit:

 

This used to be a view, for example, that many adopted about interracial relationships. A view which is not, to put it midly, considered mainstream. The same is happening with this view of same-sex romances. So while you can comfortably hold on to a double standard, the social acceptability of holding on to it is quite rapidly eroding.

 

 

When you're advocating of behalf of marginalized minorities, you don't get to turn the oppression knob to 'OFF' for a few moments to try and smugly rub in my face how successful and quickly expanding they are, and immediately turn it right back to 'ON' and have them go back to being to a group desperately in need of empowerment and compassion and yada yada yada.

 

So spare me the prophecies.

 

Double standards are bad. They're bad because - once we accept that reason is a thing we value - they exist because there's no rational basis to distinguish between two things. That's what makes it a double standard and not, for example, a distinction. No one would argue that the way we treat criminals and non-criminals is a "double standard", because the very fact of criminality justifies treating the groups differently.

 

Gender isn't a double standard. By its own logic, it captures relevant logical differences between things. Just because gender is binary doesn't make it a double standard. The wikipedia definition isn't ideal, but illustrates the conceptual difficulty: "A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for similar situations."

 

This sounds like a tedious squabble over diction. Why don't you go haveit with the person who used the term in the first place? Unless you're going to try and argue that standards dividing gender are perfectly legitimate (not double standards) but somehow gender standards that concern sexual behavior are completely illogical. (double standards) Of course, the latter is a subset of the first...
 

[Suketchi]

Spoiler

[BabyPuncher]

It's very easy to defend the status quo when you're a beneficiary of it. You're saying other people shouldn't be allowed to have what you have because it makes you uncomfortable. Why is what makes you uncomfortable so important? What about what makes them uncomfortable? You can either argue their discomfort is their own personal issue and they need to get over it or concede that it is indeed worth taking into account. Either way, you should follow your own advice. Otherwise, yeah, it's hypocrisy.

 

Simple. Because I'm the majority. It has nothing to do with 'allow.'

 

If I go to the movie theater and see two films showing, one with a straight romance and one with a gay romance, I'm going to spend my limited time and money on the one with the straight romance. Surely you would agree I have that right? I have to right to want what I want, to not be obligated into watching gay men being gay?

 

And so I spend my ticket on the film with the straight romance. And if enough people feel the same way as I do, (which they do), the straight film makes money and gets a sequel. The gay movie is a flop. Or more likely, doesn't get made in the first place because film studios are smart enough to predict these trends.

 

Do my actions prevent people who want to see a gay romance from getting what they want? Sure. (Well, not really...)

 

What do you want me to do about it?

 

You can't force me to start wanting to watch gay men being gay. And until I do, I'm going to spend my money on the straight film instead of the gay film.

[Gwydden]

When you're advocating of behalf of marginalized minorities, you don't get to turn the oppression knob to 'OFF' for a few moments to try and smugly rub in my face how successful and quickly expanding they are, and immediately turn it right back to 'ON' and have them go back to being to a group desperately in need of empowerment and compassion and yada yada yada.

 

So spare me the prophecies.

So you think everyone will think like you do? Forever? Because I assure you, you would not be the first.

 

Spoiler

 

 

This sounds like a tedious squabble over diction. Why don't you go haveit with the person who used the term in the first place? Unless you're going to try and argue that standards dividing gender are perfectly legitimate (not double standards) but somehow gender standards that concern sexual behavior are completely illogical. (double standards) Of course, the latter is a subset of the first...

The only empirical difference between the genders are the traits associated with biological sex. Dividing the Olympics in male and female divisions is based on such demonstrable differences. What you're asking is different treatment based on nothing but cultural ideals that aren't even omnipresent. Some people take issue with that.

[BabyPuncher]

So you think everyone will think like you do? Forever? Because I assure you, you would not be the first.

 

I don't think the concept of gender is going anywhere. Nor the concept of beauty.

 

What you're asking is different treatment based on nothing but cultural ideals that aren't even omnipresent. Some people take issue with that.

 

Yep. That's exactly what I'm asking.

 

That's what a little thing called 'gender' is

[Gwydden]

Simple. Because I'm the majority. It has nothing to do with 'allow.'

 

If I go to the movie theater and see two films showing, one with a straight romance and one with a gay romance, I'm going to spend my limited time and money on the one with the straight romance. Surely you would agree I have that right? I have to right to want what I want, to not be obligated into watching gay men being gay?

That sounds about right. Are you implying that if Bioware adds male strippers to their games you won't buy them? You might not find yourself in the majority then. I suspect most people would find that a silly reason not to buy a game.

 

And so I spend my ticket on the film with the straight romance. And if enough people feel the same way as I do, (which they do), the straight film makes money and gets a sequel. The gay movie is a flop. Or more likely, doesn't get made in the first place because film studios are smart enough to predict these trends.

 

Do my actions prevent people who want to see a gay romance from getting what they want? Sure.

Something making less money doesn't automatically make it a 'flop'. Let me present you with an alternate scenario. If there is a gay romance, gay people from all over are more likely to watch it. Because there is less competition, the movie does better than your average home cooked straight romance.

 

Appealing to niche markets can be very profitable if you play your cards right. We should know. RPGs are, after all, a niche. And you know what? Not everyone is motivated by profit. Some people make a game, or a movie, or write a book, even knowing they probably won't get much out of it.

 

You can't force me to start wanting to watch gay men being gay. And until I do, I'm going to spend my money on the straight film instead of the gay film.

I've still to hear an explanation for you using the terms 'gay man' and 'effeminate man' interchangeably.

 

I don't think the concept of gender is going anywhere. Nor the concept of beauty.

No, I don't think they are either. I wouldn't expect them to remain static, however. They never have. That's the thing with ideas.

 

Yep. That's exactly what I'm asking.

 

That's what a little thing called 'gender' is

Ah, but not everyone shares your ideals, because they vary from place to place, from time to time, and from individual to individual. Again, why do yours take precedence?

[KaiserShep]

Simple. Because I'm the majority. It has nothing to do with 'allow.'

 

If I go to the movie theater and see two films showing, one with a straight romance and one with a gay romance, I'm going to spend my limited time and money on the one with the straight romance. Surely you would agree I have that right? I have to right to want what I want, to not be obligated into watching gay men being gay?

 

And so I spend my ticket on the film with the straight romance. And if enough people feel the same way as I do, (which they do), the straight film makes money and gets a sequel. The gay movie is a flop. Or more likely, doesn't get made in the first place because film studios are smart enough to predict these trends.

 

Do my actions prevent people who want to see a gay romance from getting what they want? Sure. (Well, not really...)

 

What do you want me to do about it?

 

You can't force me to start wanting to watch gay men being gay. And until I do, I'm going to spend my money on the straight film instead of the gay film.

 

An interesting example. I don't really see the point of this, since a regular movie would usually have a lot more factors at work that can make or break the deal. The "straight" movie could be total dreck that tapers off quickly in the box offices thanks to bad word of mouth and terrible critical consensus, while the gay movie is actually decent or better and people like it in spite of certain things that they might normally not care for, unless they're blithering idiots and the very idea of two guys or women being a couple is totally cooties for their eyes.